Re: Re : Re: Sawilan Constructions

From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:

> i read it.
> as always, i will read very stupid and agressive.
Aggressive, certainly.  Stupid, I doubt, but perhaps missing the
point a bit.
=20
> (i) i think many a conlanger has understood and used that
> phenomenon better than fauconnier et consorts did (look at
> danov=EBn for a start).
I will.  Any particular aspects of Danoven I should look at?
=20
> (ii) many-stuff is wrong. it's still pairing concepts, and pairing
> different concepts many times in a clause doesn't change that fact.
I'm not sure I understand this criticism at all.
=20
> (iii) in "jail bait", "jail" is no "result". jail is a social
> facility, as  bait is an individual one and both refer to specific,
> basic relations and/or processes.
If we take "jail" to be shorthand for "the condition of ending up in
jail as a result of conviction for statutory rape," then it is indeed
a result.  But then, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a
"facility," whether "social" or "individual," so I'm not sure I fully
understand this criticism.

> funny how these guys use fundamentals and despise them at
> the same time.
I'm not sure I understand this criticism either.

> cognitive fields of activities imply a limited
> number of processes implying a limited number of roles as
> basic as the one consuming, the one carrying, the one covering, etc.
Unless I misunderstand what you mean when you say "cognitive fields
of activities," which is very possible, I don't see this implication
as correct, or at least relevant.

> of course, these roles refer to "vehicle", "container", "trap",
> "stem", etc. and that sounds less smart than "multi-referential
> cognitive" stuff.
Ah.  Are you trying to say that Fauconnier and Turner are just using
unnecessarily big words?
=20
> take that example (i guess Charles doesn't mind) :
>=20
> the moon eats the sun
>=20
> "eat =3D consume" in "food" field.
> if "consume =3D hide" in "astronomy" field, then you understand :
>
> the moon hides the sun
Again, I am at a bit of a loss to understand the import of this
example, divorced from context.

> it's very easy to encode and decode such metaphora
> because cognition fields are limited in number
> and basic processes like "consume" or "hide" are likely limited.
"Limited" is a fairly vague word.  By "a limited number" do you mean
ten, twenty, a hundred, five hundred, ten thousand?
=20
> the correlations between basic roles such as "consumptible" and
> "cache" are cultural. for instance, even if you're not japanese,
> you can understand that "cow-ear" refers to "leading someone"
> once you have noticed that cows obey when you grasp their ear.
> i believe this experience pertains to a cognition field listing
> the many roles re-acting to the execution of a will. and mind you,
> there are very few such roles.
Ah, I think I am starting to understand.  You are, I think, saying
that Turner and Fauconnier's analysis is too open-ended, and ignores
the idea of a fairly small core of abstract action-patterns, with
their activities and roles, which undergird all verbs?  Is that
correct, or close to it?
=20
> the only condition to map this out is to look and dream and stop
> intellectualize what billions of people understand instinctively.
I think trying to attain a clear description of what it is that
people do instinctively is precisely what they want to do.  Asking
them not to describe it is a little beside the point -- like asking a
painter not to paint the flowers, but instead to stop and smell them.=20
A useful thing, but a painter wants to paint, no matter how nice they
smell.


Ed Heil
.. edheil@postmark.net
.... http://edheil.iwarp.com
...... "Heads of state who ride and wrangle
       Who look at your face from more than one angle
       Can cut you from their bloated budgets
       Like sharpened knives through Chicken McNuggets."
         --Cake, "Nugget"